Do people actually like Eurekas/Inspirations?

[TheMeInTeam]

They're okay. Lots of rote tasks throughout the civ franchise, the impact of eurekas on #inputs game to game is tiny and it gives you an extra element to how tech progresses. Compare this to something like the poorly managed trade routes UI, diplomatic UI making deals, city management (a travesty compared to even just Civ 4, which had its own issues), or even simple unit movement and it's a blip on the radar at worst in terms of input burden.

On the flip side, you do have to plan around a bit more when it comes to progressing tech, and at least in principle rival civs could seek to deny you some of them and take advantage. As such they're not bad from a mechanic design perspective, even if the game's limitations and some of them not being very creative/well-placed doesn't allow them to completely shine.

 

[conorbebe]

I definitely like the mechanic, and it feels satisfying to me when I get a eureka/inspiration. However, it does mess up the pacing of the game, and that's something Firaxis should definitely address. Another issue I find is that where some eurekas/inspirations are very easy to achieve and are more than likely to be unlocked simply through playing the game normally, others are very difficult and not worthwhile to achieve. Some balancing in this regard would also be appreciated.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm guessing that alcohol was an accidental discovery too, or at least an unintended side-benefit of doing something else. There are a whole lot of things we have that we found/invented while actually working on other things.

 

[Victoria]

Penicillin

incorrect

 

[Anno]

I really like them as a game mechanic, but I feel like they’re one of the primary contributors to the thing that keeps me a bit down on the game which is its pacing, so I’m conflicted overall.

 

[nzcamel]

The general rule of thumb for all design is that Devs shouldn't try to fix something that isn't broken; i.e don't reinvent the wheel. They could simply have kept polishing on existing features, maybe making new features compatible with existing ones and eventually everything would have gotten better and better. Unfortunately this fallacious need to make everything new so it doesn't get boring prevents proper polishing from taking place by remaking everything and that is why every product made this way will never reach its full potential. Many games out there who don't reinvent the wheel do so well after decades of polishing I don't see why Firaxis can't do the same thing.

Yeah you've really hit the nail on the head. Look at Creative Assembly and their Total War series. The latest games are very different in every way from their earliest games, but that change happened incrementally over time. If you take one game in the series and compare it to the next, they are usually very, very similar with only slight adjustments. On the one hand, this can lead to a bit of player fatigue. If you just spent 3 months playing Empire Total War you'll probably want a break before playing Napoleon, because they are so similar. On the other hand, what this has lead to is a strong upward trajectory in quality of player experience over time.

Then you have civilization. Each title is drastically and fundamentally different from the previous one, throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think this is why each game receives mixed reviews when it first comes out, and only redeems itself after a lot of work and two expansions. I didn't get into Civ3 until Conquests was out. I also didn't bother with Civ4 until right around the time BTS came out. That's probably why I loved both games so much. I've always had old computers and never have I been able to play new games. Until recently. I finished school, got a job, earn decent money, and now actually have a powerful gaming rig so I can play anything. That's new to me. I played Civ 6 the day after it was released and was extremely disappointed. Who knows, maybe if I had just waited a couple of years and played it after all the DLC and expansions were out I would have had a very different experience.

As for the future of Civ, I think their design philosophy has some strengths. They take bigger risks and this allows them to introduce big game-changing elements quickly (think culture in Civ 3, great people in Civ 4, city-states in Civ 5), but it also means they stumble on other design choices. The AI still can't handle tactical 1 UPT combat even though Civ 5 was released ages ago. This is unacceptable. I'm not sure how to fix this. I suppose what I would most wish for is that they would diverge the Civ title going forward. I think they should take Civ as it is now and keep tinkering with it as CA does with the TW series. Civ 7 should just be a more polished and tinkered version of the best of Civ 4-6, and they should follow that path. Then, when they have new totally ground-breaking ideas for a TBS game they should just make a new game entirely.

Well Firaxis make no secret of their 33/33/33 design philosophy in Civ. If anything they emphasis that more than ever. So while I can sympathise with the POV you guys are throwing out... that you make little reference to what we all know up front (that significant changes are absolutely embraced officially) does undermine your critique.

incorrect

QI

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You are taking the names too literally, Boris.
Think domestication and taming of animals useful for transporting
material and people.

I am taking the 'names' from their Game Context: otherwise, why does the game have separate and distinct graphics for horses, cattle and sheep, and different yields for putting pastures on them, and yet stops differentiating when it comes to 'boosting' Horseback Riding, a very specific skill/technology set? This is simply sloppy design.

Mining requires carpenters, metal workers, transport specialists and many, many
other auxiliary professions and trades. Therefore, there would have been many
different types of apprentices in "mining".

Yes, but again this is sloppy Design. Mining from Classical Era on was a physical demanding and dangerous occupation, recently (certainly in Greece and Rome) reserved for slaves or convicts. Convict and Apprentice Labor are two very different things, arising from very different economic and social policies. The Technologies that Medieval/Renaissance Mining engendered were in pumping water (the first 'steam' engines were developed for that almost a century before Steam Power was applied to factory machinery) and transporting heavy loads (ore) over short distances (the first wooden-railed 'railroads' were developed for that in the 15th century - about 300 years before the steam powered 'railroad') ). But instead having multiple Mines giving a boost to researching Steam Power, transportation, Factories or some such, they boost Apprenticeship. Yes, you can argue that there were apprentices involved in mining, but that doesn't make Mining the primary driver of the Apprentice system in Medieval Europe.

My point remains: too many of the current 'Eurekas' are poorly selected to relate to the Technologies they supposedly 'boost'.

 

[Zaarin]

My interpretation of the mines for Apprenticeship is that you require a certain amount of ore for fulltime smiths and apprentices to ply their trade. The problem is that both apprenticeship and metalworking (and workshops and industrial zones) antedate the Medieval period by thousands of years.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I am taking the 'names' from their Game Context: otherwise, why does the game have separate and distinct graphics for horses, cattle and sheep, and different yields for putting pastures on them, and yet stops differentiating when it comes to 'boosting' Horseback Riding, a very specific skill/technology set? This is simply sloppy design.

Wow, I disagree. Riding is going to be easier to learn for someone with experience handling large animals, whether an actual horse or not. It's not enough for the technology itself of course but a useful stepping stone.
You can disagree of course but that doesn't make it "sloppy."

 

[noto2]

But quite logical, even your rig would not be able to handle the compute power required... however quantum computers may change all of that. I just do not understand how doomstack fans blame the developer, its not their fault computers are not powerful enough... blame the designers for choosing 1 UPT or more importantly blame the public (like me) for preferring them. By saying unacceptable my eyes dash to your name and I register it in my brain as another name to remember to forget. The lack of logic used is what is unacceptable or at least the lack of differentiating between poor programming of an archer leaving a city as opposed to optimal moves of 27 different units in a single turn over varying terrain in various situations with lack of information (or memory)

That's because the first person to dig it up tried to taste it then carried a massive lump home in their protective leather satchel.
indeed, most of my decent population growth happens via chopping now, especially in rebelling cities which will not grow but need to grow to stop the rebellion. Chopping a cow in half not only ignores rebelling vegans but also ignores food caps. When I go into jungle I do not bother about fresh water much, I'm more interested in is it worth my builders time to chop it into a 10 pop city.

As an aside, to no-one in particular... one suspect one is deemed a min maxer but am in fact more of a messer. I played a game last night where the aim was to get 15 20 pop cities.... a very unhappy civ was I

False dichotomy. I'm not interested in bringing back Civ 4 combat mechanics, although I will say this for Civ 4 - the game was designed to work with the AI and it achieved its goals. You know there are options other than Civ 5 and 6 board game 1 UPT combat and Civ 4 stack combat, don't you? Do you honestly think this is an argument about Civ 4 combat vs Civ 5/6 ? I've played Civ for most of my life, I love the series. If the AI can't fight it throws off the entire game and ruins everything else. This is because when the AI can't fight, the only way to give yourself a challenge is to increase difficulty, but then all that does is make the AI an economic rival but not a military one, which means at the highest difficulty levels you are not playing the same game. 95% of the game's options are not available to you and your only realistic option is to win via conquest. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that Civ games have never been MP friendly because it takes far too long. The AI is extremely important in this game because it can only feasibly be played SP.

 

[Ferocitus]

I am taking the 'names' from their Game Context: otherwise, why does the game have separate and distinct graphics for horses, cattle and sheep, and different yields for putting pastures on them, and yet stops differentiating when it comes to 'boosting' Horseback Riding, a very specific skill/technology set? This is simply sloppy design.



Yes, but again this is sloppy Design. Mining from Classical Era on was a physical demanding and dangerous occupation, recently (certainly in Greece and Rome) reserved for slaves or convicts. Convict and Apprentice Labor are two very different things, arising from very different economic and social policies. The Technologies that Medieval/Renaissance Mining engendered were in pumping water (the first 'steam' engines were developed for that almost a century before Steam Power was applied to factory machinery) and transporting heavy loads (ore) over short distances (the first wooden-railed 'railroads' were developed for that in the 15th century - about 300 years before the steam powered 'railroad') ). But instead having multiple Mines giving a boost to researching Steam Power, transportation, Factories or some such, they boost Apprenticeship. Yes, you can argue that there were apprentices involved in mining, but that doesn't make Mining the primary driver of the Apprentice system in Medieval Europe.

My point remains: too many of the current 'Eurekas' are poorly selected to relate to the Technologies they supposedly 'boost'.

I see them as symbols and labels, similar to pieces on a chessboard. They aren't
real knights or bishops, or even groups of individuals but just pressure and
influence at locations over time. If you take civ concepts too literally, then
very little will fit historical reality. It's like trying to find places for
magical creatures in taxonomies of existing fauna.

 

[Archon_Wing]

False dichotomy. I'm not interested in bringing back Civ 4 combat mechanics,

Yea, and also I think this whole stack thing is such an overrated issue.

1 UPT doesn't cause the AI to not build walls or denounce/make demands against civs with 10x their power.
1 UPT doesn't cause the AI to randomly attack CS's and lose envoys and the city itself due to loyalty.
1 UPT doesn't cause the AI to fail to win by t300 on levels less than deity even with all their stupid bonuses even when it's peaceful.
1 UPT doesn't cause war carts to have 30 strength.

Etc....

[Honestly the AI doesn't even really behave that badly tactically anymore since the last patch, nor do I even expect an AI to ever match the player in terms of tactics. ]

The AI fails as badly in peace only slightly worse than it does in war.

It's a red herring tbh. It's more that they decided to use bonuses to substitute competency and this has been true since day one. I'd say my opinion of Civ 6 would not change much regardless of what system was used.

 

[Zaarin]

It's like trying to find places for
magical creatures in taxonomies of existing fauna.

Which depending on the creature in question really isn't that hard. I mean, Linnaeus' original taxonomy included the kraken. The European dragon could plausibly be Draco draco, from which we could then add the Chinese dragon D. sinensis, the wyvern D. vipera, the lindworm as perhaps D. borealis, and even the Feathered Serpent of Mesoamerican myths as D. plumeris. How about unicorns (Equus monoceros)? Mûmakil (Elephas imperator -- going out on a limb and assuming the mûmak is a cousin of Asian elephants and mammoths rather than African elephants...)?

 

[Flaxton]

Every time I see horseback riding I think of this:

 

[masda_gib]

Chopping a cow in half not only ignores rebelling vegans but also ignores food caps.

Ts. When you harvest cows, they don't get fed to your citizens. They become citizens of your city. (Some whith jungle; the monkeys or whatever now live in your city)

 

[noto2]

Yea, and also I think this whole stack thing is such an overrated issue.

1 UPT doesn't cause the AI to not build walls or denounce/make demands against civs with 10x their power.
1 UPT doesn't cause the AI to randomly attack CS's and lose envoys and the city itself due to loyalty.
1 UPT doesn't cause the AI to fail to win by t300 on levels less than deity even with all their stupid bonuses even when it's peaceful.
1 UPT doesn't cause war carts to have 30 strength.

Etc....

[Honestly the AI doesn't even really behave that badly tactically anymore since the last patch, nor do I even expect an AI to ever match the player in terms of tactics. ]



The AI fails as badly in peace only slightly worse than it does in war.

It's a red herring tbh. It's more that they decided to use bonuses to substitute competency and this has been true since day one. I'd say my opinion of Civ 6 would not change much regardless of what system was used.

Really? You actually think so? You see, I would say Civ has had the same difficulty problems since Civ 4 and it might go back earlier than that but I didn't pay close attention. What I mean is that the higher difficulties skew the game. Take Civ 5, for example. What changed between King and Diety difficulty? Was fighting wars harder on Diety? Yes, but not impossible. What about founding a religion or building early wonders? Basically impossible.

Picking Rome and stomping a neighbour with legions is only slightly more difficult on Diety than it is on King. On the other hand, let's say you want to play as Byzantium and found a religion. King? Totally doable. Diety? Hahahaha, forget it. Or let's say you want to play Egypt and build a bunch of wonders, especially early-game wonders. King? Totally doable. Totally doable on Emperor as well. Diety? Hahahahaha forget it scrub.

My epiphany came when the Diety AI built the Temple of Artemis on turn 16. I tried to figure out how that was even mathematically possible (must be worker chops, that's the only explanation). I saw the AI built the ToA on turn 20 MANY MANY MANY times. Hell, if it took the AI until turn 25 it was slacking.

So the way that Firaxis amps difficulty skews the game. Some playstyles, like being an early warmonger, aren't eliminated. Of course the standard strategy was to just make friends with everyone and keep up in tech through research agreements and then win with artillery/battleships, or win via space race because the AI was too dumb to launch a ship. But ramping it up to Diety meant no culture victory, no wonder building, no being the tech leader, no founding a religion and being a religious powerhouse. So it removed many strategies and made the game much more one dimensional which erodes replay value.

I haven't played Civ 6 in a while, so maybe you're right about the tactical AI but I'd have to say I'd be astounded if it was actually decent.

 

[noto2]

Every time I see horseback riding I think of this:

That's hilarious! There's a long list of English words butchered by Americans. One that perpetually annoys me is how Americans use the word "liberals" to refer to people who are left-wing and want a bigger role for government. That is the exact opposite of what a liberal is! JS Mill and Adam Smith are face-palming in the afterlife.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

That's hilarious! There's a long list of English words butchered by Americans. One that perpetually annoys me is how Americans use the word "liberals" to refer to people who are left-wing and want a bigger role for government. That is the exact opposite of what a liberal is! JS Mill and Adam Smith are face-palming in the afterlife.

Language evolves. I'm sure Londoners don't use words the same as they did in 1776 either.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

1 UPT doesn't cause the AI to fail to win by t300 on levels less than deity even with all their stupid bonuses even when it's peaceful.

I'm not sure the AI's winning by T300 on Deity either, based on my tests so far. I've too small a sample to place any confidence on that assertion, but from what I've seen so far, I suspect the following may be true at Deity:

• The AI will not win at domination.
• The AI will not win at religion except on a Pangea map; on a Pangea map, an AI religious victory in the 200s may be possible (standard map size, standard speeds; the smaller the map size, the faster victory the possible AI religious victory time).
• The AI is not likely to complete a science victory before T300 (standard map size, standard speed). It will start building Space Ports in the mid-200s, but take a long time to finish the required research and projects.
• The AI will not win a cultural victory before another AI wins a science victory (they may not be able to win a culture victory at all). Even culture focused civs seem to be unable to generate foreign tourists at a pace equal to the domestic tourists of the largest other AI civ, i.e. they get closest to a culture victory around T150, then fall further and further away from victory as time goes on. I have the least amount of confidence in this prediction, as I don't have nearly enough data to confirm that a culture victory may not be possible under some circumstances.

EDIT: One more test game, and at least the last idea has been disproved. I'm also less confident about the second point, as I've now observed a civ convert one other civ on another continent temporarily. They couldn't hold it or press forward in this case, but under other circumstances perhaps an AI religious spread to another continent could be achieved.

 

[Victoria]

Ts. When you harvest cows, they don't get fed to your citizens. They become citizens of your city. (Some whith jungle; the monkeys or whatever now live in your city)

I wondered why some people were as thin as wheat stalks.

I'm sure Londoners don't use words the same as they did in 1776 either.

Well Ruby was not alive then so no... however its strange how English people mask the meaning of words while Americans simplify.

False dichotomy. I'm not interested in bringing back Civ 4 combat mechanics

The doomstacks was a mild aside assumption that you were part of that team while my discussion was basically saying you were anti 1upt (even though civ can have 5 upt including an army - or 10 upt if you want to get picky about possibilities without including armies as 3) Just a way off comment like false dichotomy... I guess you like the word a lot.